Supreme Court strikes down McCain-Feingold campaign finance law - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 2nd, 2010, 01:00 PM   #41
97xj
Senior Member
 
97xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-04-06
Location: Whitmore Lake
Posts: 1,339
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Please show me where corporations are listed in the US Constitution?

Please enlighten me to your side then.
97xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 2nd, 2010, 07:12 PM   #42
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97xj View Post
Please show me where corporations are listed in the US Constitution?

Please enlighten me to your side then.
I don't know why you waste electricity in sending this dribble.

Corporations are made up of people, just like PACs, so I guess we can again see the biggoted left rearing it's ugly head.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2010, 08:34 PM   #43
97xj
Senior Member
 
97xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-04-06
Location: Whitmore Lake
Posts: 1,339
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
I don't know why you waste electricity in sending this dribble.

Corporations are made up of people, just like PACs, so I guess we can again see the biggoted left rearing it's ugly head.
I took you off my ignore list so I could see this? I guess I should have known that you would not have had anything constructive to add

Last edited by 97xj; February 2nd, 2010 at 08:50 PM.
97xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 10:21 AM   #44
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Is the ignore list the list the liberals keep the American public on
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2010, 12:35 PM   #45
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97xj View Post
Please show me where corporations are listed in the US Constitution?

Please enlighten me to your side then.
I've been trying to enlighten you, really.

They aren't listed, that's the point...

Read this again, then make a choice between A or B. There is no wrong answer but there is no other option beyond the two listed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
The supreme court is bound by the constitution as is the congress. This decision by the supreme court was based on constitutional law, nothing else.

The constitution has only three parties...

1. The federal government
2. The states
3. The people

Only one of these three parties have rights. Those rights are total and unrestricted by the government. So either a corporation has rights or it has none. So which is it?

A) They do have rights.

This would prove that, under the constitution, they are the people which would grant the protection of their unrestricted free speech.

B)They have no rights.

This would prove that they are not the people and do not exist under federal constitutional law. Meaning congress has no power over them at all and cannot create laws restricting them. That power would be left to the states or the people repsectively via the tenth amendment.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2010, 03:41 PM   #46
Yetti
Buy a Fiat! Save the UAW!
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 20 minutes south of Hell...
Posts: 14,388
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us...scotus.html?hp

Quote:
WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.
Skip to next paragraph Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Justice Clarence Thomas said he had stopped attending State of the Union speeches.

Blog

The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.



And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.
“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
__________________
Yetti
Yetti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 09:27 AM   #47
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Fascism is state control of private industry. It is not private industry having a voice in the political process.

There are many examples of Fascism in these United States today, but this is not one of them.


Read and learn....

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Sorry bud, but it's you who has no idea what he's talkikng about. Read your history of Mussolini's fascist regime. Mussolini replaced the members of parliament with corporate representatives in the early 1930s, not the other way around. It's well known and documented history. Look at your own post. The quote by Mussolini himself: "The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill.

What's going to happen is that when corporations finally, completely take over America, it won’t be America anymore. A corporate-run state, where the money powers own the government and the politicians – what the Republican Five on the Supreme Court have put us on the road to – has historically been known as feudalism or fascism. Think the East India Company in 1776 England, or Mussolini as cited above. If we don’t do something fast – probably amending the constitution to deny corporations personhood – this country, and the world, could become very authoritarian and very ugly very quickly. When you work for a corporation you have no rights. At will employment, no right to privacy, etc. Why wouldn't a corporate-run state be any different?

Last edited by AGoodBuzz; February 11th, 2010 at 09:32 AM.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 09:55 AM   #48
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
I've been trying to enlighten you, really.

They aren't listed, that's the point...

Read this again, then make a choice between A or B. There is no wrong answer but there is no other option beyond the two listed.
It's not a zero-sum equation. One does not necessarily equal the other. You are ignoring the fact that corporations have unlimited lifetimes (virtually immortal), cannot be imprisoned for their crimes, and cannot cast a vote at the ballot box. They are not people. The people that run them are, but the corporation itself is not a person, it is a concept.

Here's a brief history of the corporation. I challenge you to invalidate it (and I don't mean nitpick over a number here or there, but to actually invalidate the post, which you can't): http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 09:57 AM   #49
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
I don't know why you waste electricity in sending this dribble.

Corporations are made up of people, just like PACs, so I guess we can again see the biggoted left rearing it's ugly head.
Agreed, corporations are made up of people, but that doesn't make the corporation a person.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 11:44 AM   #50
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
It's not a zero-sum equation. One does not necessarily equal the other. You are ignoring the fact that corporations have unlimited lifetimes (virtually immortal), cannot be imprisoned for their crimes, and cannot cast a vote at the ballot box. They are not people. The people that run them are, but the corporation itself is not a person, it is a concept.
If corporations aren't considered to be people then the federal governement has no power to make law to control them. that power would then be delegated to the states or the people. So you agree that Mccain/Feingold is not constitutional.

Thanks for agreeing with my point.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 11:54 AM   #51
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Sorry bud, but it's you who has no idea what he's talkikng about. Read your history of Mussolini's fascist regime. Mussolini replaced the members of parliament with corporate representatives in the early 1930s, not the other way around. It's well known and documented history. Look at your own post. The quote by Mussolini himself: "The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill.

What's going to happen is that when corporations finally, completely take over America, it won’t be America anymore. A corporate-run state, where the money powers own the government and the politicians – what the Republican Five on the Supreme Court have put us on the road to – has historically been known as feudalism or fascism. Think the East India Company in 1776 England, or Mussolini as cited above. If we don’t do something fast – probably amending the constitution to deny corporations personhood – this country, and the world, could become very authoritarian and very ugly very quickly. When you work for a corporation you have no rights. At will employment, no right to privacy, etc. Why wouldn't a corporate-run state be any different?
Nice try but I'm not taking the bate, I won't negotiate what I know to be true. Reasoning with you is an effort in futility however I still have hope for Sova.

Have a nice day!
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 12:22 PM   #52
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Agreed, corporations are made up of people, but that doesn't make the corporation a person.
Does it make a PAC a person?

Some on the left somehow think a PAC should have the rights of an individual, but not a corporation...


"If a group of individuals want to pool their resources for political speech then they should form PACS and not corporations"

Looks like left wing discrimination. Again
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2010, 12:24 PM   #53
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
It's not a zero-sum equation. One does not necessarily equal the other. You are ignoring the fact that corporations have unlimited lifetimes (virtually immortal), cannot be imprisoned for their crimes, and cannot cast a vote at the ballot box. They are not people. The people that run them are, but the corporation itself is not a person, it is a concept.

Here's a brief history of the corporation. I challenge you to invalidate it (and I don't mean nitpick over a number here or there, but to actually invalidate the post, which you can't): http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf

Could you do me a huge favor and tell us how Obama Sucks, again, and how you got tricked into voting for him. Tell us the story about how he is a liar.

Please.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:29 AM   #54
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
The right to free speech is a natural right. It isn't granted to you by the governement. The government has no power to remove it from you for any reason ever.

Your distinction between an individual and a corporation is incorrect. I'll use myself as an example. I have an LLC set up so that I can do side work and legally claim my income. It's only because of the government that I have to be incorporated.

According to you I cannot use my LLC income to donate to a politician if that is my choice but you are wrong. The government has no power to deny my free speech simply because they set up a system where I have to be incorporated to keep from going to jail for tax evasion.

A constitutional law does not change based on your source of income or your level of income.




What he said. I know you are a progressive & anti-capitalistic based on your posting history. This thread simply re-enforces those facts.
Yes, you can and should use YOUR LLC money to contribute to whomever you want, but you are an INDIVIDUAL using his earnings as he see's fit.

This "anti-capitalist" crap really cracks me up. It makes it clear none of you guys actually know diddly-squat about anything but the little bubble you live in. Have any of you even left your home town? Ever? Look at all the other industrialised countries in the world with well regulated capitalist structures. You're going to tell me Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, etc. (I could go on and on) are anti-capitalist? You're either amazingly ignorant, or in total denial.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:32 AM   #55
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
If corporations aren't considered to be people then the federal governement has no power to make law to control them. that power would then be delegated to the states or the people. So you agree that Mccain/Feingold is not constitutional.

Thanks for agreeing with my point.
Okay, so let's take that logic a little further.

Bombs are not people. Nor is heroin. Nor is pornography. Nor is nuclear waste. By your logic the government (you know, "the people") doesn't have any right to regulate them either. Is that what you are saying?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:35 AM   #56
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Nice try but I'm not taking the bate, I won't negotiate what I know to be true. Reasoning with you is an effort in futility however I still have hope for Sova.

Have a nice day!
It's not bait bud. It's a quote directly from Mussolini himself. It has nothing to do with reasoning with me.

And I come on here to "reason" all the time. It's you and Toes and others like you that use logic like "Obama sucks ass", and other name calling. There's nothing resonable about that. It get's no one anywhere.

Oh, and it's spelld "bait".

Last edited by AGoodBuzz; February 13th, 2010 at 10:38 AM.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:37 AM   #57
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
Does it make a PAC a person?

Some on the left somehow think a PAC should have the rights of an individual, but not a corporation...


"If a group of individuals want to pool their resources for political speech then they should form PACS and not corporations"

Looks like left wing discrimination. Again
You hit the nail on the head Toes. Honestly I'm not a big fan of PAC's either. I believe all campaigning should be financed by the people No private funding of any kind from individuals or PAC's or collectives or anything.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:37 AM   #58
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
Could you do me a huge favor and tell us how Obama Sucks, again, and how you got tricked into voting for him. Tell us the story about how he is a liar.

Please.
And this is relevant to what exactly?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 10:43 AM   #59
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I love how you guys want to try to stand by the constitution when it comes to the rights of a corporation, but get all bent out of shape when I point out the things Bush did to take away OUR rights.

Here's what I think: you guys are actually collecting little checks from corporate interests to be paid bloggers. That's why you can afford to sit on your ass all day on this forum and defend politicians and entities that work tirelessly against the interests of the American people. You're more interested in getting paid than the what you are doing for the money.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2010, 07:44 PM   #60
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
And this is relevant to what exactly?
I just like to hear you say it.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.49587 seconds with 80 queries